If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

I would suggest that the OP search for a paper by May Berrenbaum(from teh U of Ill.) around 2007. She tested to see if CCD was of chemical origins, or pathogen origins. I forgot her methods, sorry. The conclusions where that it was a pathogen, which supported Hackenbergs conclusion.

A wise man above wrote:

I have the same problem as most people doing CCD research, finding the missing bees.

There is a report from a foreign country that analyzed those bee. The bees where placed in a "desert", 1/2 mile from a small cultivated nectar source. The author could not find any disease in the hives, but found plenty in the dead bees 1/2 mile away. Very simple, NOT very easy.

We saw CCD in 2005, 2006. Killed 90 percent for 2 years. Cleansed the hives and problems changed dramatically, and they made honey again. Don't forget the "don't make honey" CCD symptom. Do you have that?

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

We saw CCD in 2005, 2006. Killed 90 percent for 2 years. Cleansed the hives and problems changed dramatically, and they made honey again. Don't forget the "don't make honey" CCD symptom. Do you have that?

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

The Henry et al study noted that a neonicotinoid pesticide impaired foraging with bees less likely to return but it exposed the bees in the study to a level of pesticide considerably above levels typically found in pollen and nectar.
Alaux and Pettis both documented an interaction between a neonicotinoid pesticide and nosema in a lab study but Pettis noted that what he found in the lab was not replicated at the colony level for some reason.
I don't know if Alaux also saw this or whether he looked for it.

The most convincing study I have seen which suggests that neonicotinoids are a problem is the Whitehorn et al (Dave Goulson, Stirling University) which found that exposure of Imidacloprid reduced the size of bumblebee nests and reduced the number of queens produced on maturity of the colony.
Goulson looks at bumbles rather than honeybees.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

I have followed the studies about CCD closely, and the evidence that neonics are the cause is overwhelming.
Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.

The question is no more if neonics cause CCD, it's how do they cause CCD.

As the bees' orientation has been shown to be compromised by neonics, isn't it plausible that their perception of day length could be compromised as well?

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Originally Posted by Stromnessbees

I have followed the studies about CCD closely, and the evidence that neonics are the cause is overwhelming.
Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.

The question is no more if neonics cause CCD, it's how do they cause CCD.

As the bees' orientation has been shown to be compromised by neonics, isn't it plausible that their perception of day length could be compromised as well?

Lots and lots of things are plausible, the real question is what is provable. You say there is no question that neonics are the problem yet you only offer casual anecdotal observations. Things like "he saw them leave and they didnt come back". Would be an observation easily made by a child. I asked some pretty basic questions in my previous post and you have chosen not to answer any of them. Lets start with these simple questions and see if we get an answer this time. Have your "healthy" bees had the same level of exposure to varroa as your friends dwindling bees? How do you and your friends monitor mite levels and what did you find? Are your beekeeping practices and equipment identical. Are your forage and climactic conditions at least similar if not identical and here is the "biggie" that anyone wants to know before considering if your theory makes any sense at all. Have either you or your friend ever had any sampling done of any bees or bee products for traces of neonics and if so what levels were found of what chemicals.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Originally Posted by Stromnessbees

I have followed the studies about CCD closely, and the evidence that neonics are the cause is overwhelming.
Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.

The question is no more if neonics cause CCD, it's how do they cause CCD.

As the bees' orientation has been shown to be compromised by neonics, isn't it plausible that their perception of day length could be compromised as well?

Stromnessbees,

As I am sure you have already seen, you opened the proverbial "can of worms." I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I think at present all we have are some theories of what causes CCD, but that;s to be expected when a solution to a problem of this magnitutde arises. When you make statements here like you have made, even refering to "scientists" as you did, add your supporting evidence or at least be ready to produce it when challenged. Like I said, I am not taking sides on this issue but fair is fair. If you offer comments such as these, which I did find quite interesting, everyone is justified to say "prove it" and you are obligated to do so. Just my thoughts, no more.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers. -Stromnessbees

The scientists who work on these sorts of things are conscientious, hard-working sorts of folks. Simply the fear of being exposed by another scientist who wouldn't have the alleged sorts of connections would keep most anyone in academia from committing such fraud.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

When you make statements here like you have made, even refering to "scientists" as you did, add your supporting evidence or at least be ready to produce it when challenged.

As I said before, this thread is not about the 'if', it's about the 'how'.

And it's not about varroa or hive disinfection either.

As you seem to doubt what I said about some of the research, I will give you an example:

What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths
...
A cheer must have gone up at Bayer on Thursday when a front-page New York Times article, under the headline "Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery," described how a newly released study pinpoints a different cause for the die-off: "a fungus tag-teaming with a virus." The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system. The Bayer pesticides, however, go unmentioned.

What the Times article did not explore -- nor did the study disclose -- was the relationship between the study's lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, and Bayer Crop Science. In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Originally Posted by jonathan

Also worth pointing out that Stromness, Orkney is a varroa free area which makes quite a difference to how bees need to be managed.

Interesting - they have CCD in varroa-free area? That against believe that varroa somehow involved in CCD. I did not know that irradiation prevents CCD. It sounded complicated,but in reality - most food in supermarkets are irradiated including strawberries etc. They have gigantic "facilitiesy" with usually cobalt-60 radioactive source and pass through the whole containers... it would not be difficult to irradiate beekeeping hardware if it will solve the issue.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Interesting - they have CCD in varroa-free area?

There is little or no evidence of CCD anywhere in Europe.
There are people who try and attribute any colony death to CCD if the colony ended up with a small dead cluster.
This can happen with both varroa and nosema especially over winter when a colony dwindles.

It is a real shame to see the smears against Jerry Bromenshenk being repeated.

Some people quote the science if it suits, and then go in for personal attacks against the scientist when the findings don't fit the prejudice. This conspiratorial attitude is really unhelpful to the debate.

I don't actually think that Gerry Bromenshenk's theory about the iridovirus is likely to stand up over time but to label him a Bayer stooge simply because he is not blaming neonicotinoids is a disgrace.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Wasn't going to step in this mess again but this kind of thinking pisses me off. Just because Bayer supplied some of the funding in no way suggests the results are cooked. The only way to disprove the data is to re-do the experiments--not question funding sources. Being an Army entomologist I am well aware of the assumption that the science is somehow invalid because the DoD or a Corp funded the work. All research I have conducted was never influenced by the wishes of the funders. The funding was happily taken so I didn't have to fire anyone and, in fact, hire more folks in a developing nation. Data was distilled according to my personal interpretations and published/being published as such. If the funding sources (to include the DoD) don't like the results that is their problem, not mine.

In this overly litigious, sue happy, liberal society the last thing most corporations want to do is cover things up. In fact, the funding is usually supplied to figure things out before huge problems arise. The problem w/ the potential link of CCD to any one source is the huge scope of the variables (as pointed out above). Even hives kept under identical conditions will have a % die off due to chance alone. The trick is to figure out if there is more mortality than would be expected by chance alone--hence the use of statistics.

Perhaps the lawsuit was dropped because the work he did trying to prove a link led him to the opposite conclusion? A real scientist would admit this but a political hack would keep pushing the talking point. We seem to have a lot more of the latter these days.

What are your qualifications? Are you educated in entomology, biochemistry, or any hard science (past the run of the mill bachelors degree) or do you get all your facts from CNN? Trust me, if there were a conspiracy here the New York Times would have been the first to show how "evil" Bayer is as objective editors have long since left this "news" outlet.

There is nothing wrong w/ your hypothesis but the fact that it is a hypothesis means the debate IS still on the "IF" question. Based on my cursory knowledge I would be willing to bet that mite loads may be 50% of the cause. Perhaps chronic exposure to neonics is enough to push them past the point of no return in terms of survival in some situations but the point is that this is not the case in ALL situations. This suggests that CCD is not solely the result of evil, greedy, corporations hell bent on destroying humanity to make a buck. This kind of simple thinking is destroying our society but that is another debate.

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Nice posts Jonathan and jclark. Stromnessbee clearly is more interested in chasing down pet theories and casting aspersions on a good bee researcher who has spent his career doing so much for our industry. I dare say Jerry wouldn't have based a study on two sets of hives when only was was exposed to varroa as Stromnessbee has offered up as evidence. Time might be better spent proving the existence of Nessie or Chemtrails.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

.
I can see that several posters here really don't like the topic of the thread and desperately try to derail from it.

Let's try to get back to the topic ...

There are not only unusual phenomena observed in honeybee colonies, they are noticed with bumblebees as well:

Some of them seem to be unable to recognize the seasons, just like the honeybee colonies:

Scientists investigate phenomenon of the 'winter bees'

It is one of the sounds of summer, but now the buzz of the bumblebee is becoming increasingly familiar in deepest winter – at a time when the insects should be hibernating.
...
The phenomenon has been recorded in the buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris), one of the most common in the UK. Like other bees, it is usually only seen between March and September as it spends autumn and winter asleep underground, but there have been increasing reports of winter activity in recent years.
...
"Preliminary data collected by Marc Carlton shows that there is a second cycle active during the winter," Dr Ings added. "It doesn't seem to be the bees extending their life from the summer and lasting longer into the autumn. They are starting all over again in the winter."
...
Prof David Goulson, from the Bumblebee Conservation Trust and an academic from Stirling University, said: "The real puzzle is that it is not just a climate change thing. It doesn't happen in Brittany, for example, or anywhere else in the world.
...

Re: A possible explanation for CCD

Originally Posted by Stromnessbees

.
I can see that several posters here really don't like the topic of the thread and desperately try to derail from it.

no most posters like topics when facts are posted. I have read many papers saying neonics can't bee shown as a problem, you don't show anything except what you think, now should I listen to the people doing the papers or you. I opt to listen to the people that know what they are talking about, like Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk.

mike syracuse ny
I went to bed mean, and woke up meaner. Marshal Dillon